George Will: Obama On A ‘Collision Course’ With Supporters Over Afghanistan

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 4:46 pm, June 27th, 2010

» 8 comments

It looks like we may find out sooner than later whether General McChrystal‘s aides were right when they said if more Americans “started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.” Thanks to Rolling Stone the country is definitely paying attention. Whether this bodes well for President Obama‘s strategy there, such as it is, remains to be seen. George Will does not think it does.

On This Week this morning Will said that heading into the 2010 mid-terms the President was on a “collision course with his base” over our role in Afghanistan. The remark followed an exchange with WaPo writer Rajiv Chandrasekaran over whether Obama has managed to “escape short-term political peril” by naming Gen. Petraeus as a replacement for McChrystal. Chandrasekaran thinks he has, but that the long-term risk is that come 2011 Petraeus presents a “much more formidable advocate for delaying this drawdown.”

Said Will:

And the collision is going to be between the president and his base. The president, going into the 2010 elections, looking forward to 2012, hoped for three things. Rapid creation of jobs, the health care bill becoming more popular after it was signed. Neither has happened. And third, radical improvement in Afghanistan. The biggest number haunting the White House has to be enthusiasm deficit between Republicans eager to vote and Democrats tepid about this. And Afghanistan is going to do nothing to energize his base.

Watch below.

barack obama, George Will, Jake Tapper, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, This Week

Moderate

Obama is much better at running for office than acting as a leader. The media is no longer propping him up.
SteveMG

I’m not sure the “base” will turn against him over Afghanistan. If job growth continues to stall and the other economic numbers remain stagnant, whether Afghanistan is going well or going poorly won’t make much of a difference.

Besides as we all remember (at least I do): candidate Obama was a full-throated supporter of the Afghanistan war. It’s going to be nearly impossible for him to rachet back that approach.

Afghanistan may be an irritant politically for the President; but not much more than that. And if – if – we suffer another terror attack (a successful one that is), I doubt many will be calling for a retreat from Kabul.
TruckBoatTruck

SteveMG said:
I’m not sure the “base” will turn against him over Afghanistan.

Agreed for the same reasons you suggest. Further, Afghanistan is way over there… and the economy is here. Political bases tend to focus on the thing that is in their face, not what is half-way around the world.
SteveMG

Agreed for the same reasons you suggest.

But he may be facing an anti-war candidate in 2012. If the situation continues to degenerate or remain stagnant, I can see a, let’s say, Kucinich (perhaps) getting a little more support with calls for our withdrawal. So, Afghanistan (and Iraq) may be a rallying issue for the more liberal/left elements to unify around.

Anyway, if the Republicans do make major gains in the Congressional elections in November, Afghanistan may be the very least of his worries.
TruckBoatTruck

SteveMG said:
I can see a, let’s say, Kucinich

Isn’t Kucinich required to run? Kidding. Barring something insane happening, I don’t see anyone putting up a primary challenge to Obama. I don’t see the DNC letting that happen.

But then again, would Kucinich (or someone else) be able to muster a 3rd party-left challenge — getting on the ballet in a number of states and taking votes away from Obama?

Either way, the 2012 nuts may be onto something… that election cycle is going to make 2008 seem like a walk in the park. God help us all.
Paula

That explains another posting on Mediaite, where the Director of CIA now says of Afghanistan, basically, “Nothing to see here, folks. Nothing going on. Move along.” They’re preparing to ramp up the withdrawal, without regard to conditions on the ground. The only “conditions on the ground” that they’re worried about is in the Blue States.

Face it: No Democrat since Jack Kennedy has had any BALLS!!!! AT ALL!! They cower, cut, and run in the face of the enemy and they have absolutely no sense for victory whatsoever. If you want to put the country at risk, elect a DEMOCRAT — ANY DEMOCRAT — to the White House.
Nachi

Why, I thought George was a great supporter of our varied “patriots” and “heroes” and “warriors.”
scott w

Re: “No Democrat since JFK had any balls…they cut and run…”: LBJ could hardly be accused of having cut & run. Also, when Clinton started bombing Serbia the Republicans accused him of “wagging the dog”, ie sending our military into harm’s way unnecessarily for political purposes.
Most of the Republican-supporting talkers talk tough incessantly, but they want someone else to do the fighting and dying; they were never in the military themselves: Rush, Bill O., Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, Gingrich, Cheney, Dennis Miller, Karl Rove, Armey, DeLay, etc etc etc.